![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add older projects, by year.
Also, the details of the STPG plans are all in those links. Expand on them with generic pictures...I will if I ever get time! Fig 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now added some pics Fig 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added some brief details of the older projects, and the new one by the guy from neath. Also added supporters and opponents of the plans.
Fig
18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly written by the pro-barrage lobby and therefore breaks Wilkipedia's NPOV policy. In particular, the environmental costs, and degree of acceptance in the scientific community of the costs, are understated. Suggest removal of article or wait until a truly unbiased submission is made 212.137.61.82 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
However, in order to understand where the vested interests might lie, it is necessary to see the wider picture. The alternative to any Severn Barrage would probably be three nuclear power stations; and these are huge facilities that would have to be built by someone - the same construction industry that stands to gain from the barrage.
Why then would this project proceed? Tidalenergy 05:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry old man this is not the Twilight Zone and I have no intention of creepily obsessively sniping at you. Perhaps you might want to tone down the allegations.
I would invite you to please take up the option of mediation/arbitration --- I long ago offered this but you never took it up. I would gladly submit to any fair and equitable conflict resolution in an attempt to have you relieved of what you perceive as persecution. Perception IS reality as they say.
As for the other allegations I have answered you before --- I have no former company that I am promoting, believe it or not.
In regard to the data, if it is fair for you to ask that the evidence be produced here, when you ask for it from others - why is it not fair to ask you the same? Not everyone has access to your vast array of data bases. Please, I say this without malice or guile, can you post it here for all to see? Let the debate be open fair and transparent. Tidalenergy 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot has been said of the amount of power that would be produced - around 2000-8000 megawatts - but with little if any scrutiny of these numbers. The numbers and the studies should be produced here to add to the debate and allow scrutiny. Tidalenergy 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Any Severn Barrage proposal needs to consider 1) Impact on European protected species and habitats. You cannot replace an ecosystem like the Severn. The site is designated for what is there now, not what might emerge after the works are finished. You cannot mitigate for destruction. 2) Where will the building materials come from? Do we want to hollow out the Mendip Hills just to drop them in the river? 3) Water levels are likely to rise inside and outside the barrage requiring considerable investment in flood protection. This is because the flow of the water in and out of the estuary will be constricted and slowed so the water will back up thus raising water levels. 4) The impact on the viability of Bristol Port needs to be considered. 5) Many of the factories alongside the Severn eg Avonmouth discharge effluent into the river. The Environment Agency have guaged and licenced these discharges against the current very active tidal regime. Any change to that regime will inevitably lead to a reassessment of those discharges potentially impacting negatively on the viability of those works.
The article contains a factual error - the severn estuary is not designated as a special area for (sic) conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive but part of the estuary is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Birds Directive and is also an internationally designated site under the Ramsar convention. The UK government is currently considering whether to put the site forward as a potential special area of conservation (SAC) but has yet to do so. ( 81.179.104.197 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
Could you provide a source for "The output of a set of large lagoons has been estimated at about 500 MW peak output, less than 1/10th of a barrage." My reading of the reference provided is that for the largest scenario peak output is about half of barrage peak (4.5GW), with average power 30% higher than barrage because it operates in more states of the tide. Also why was "it is claimed that" added to "the lagoons would not impound water in the ecologically sensitive inter-tidal areas of the estuary."? My reading is that the lagoons would be built below the low-water mark, not over the inter-tidal areas. Rwendland 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As an exercise I have used their given numbers (page 2 of their document) for wall length and impounded area to calculate the number and size of lagoons they envisage, to highlight why simply stating that the lagoons will be "at the low water mark, typically up to a mile out from firm ground" is not credible without showing exactly where.
(These sums are easy using simultaneous equations of the circumference and area of a circle.)
FoE intend to impound 115 miles^2 of water. As a single lagoon this would be an impossible 12 miles in diameter, for which there is obviously no suitable site. However, equalising this with the stated wall length of 95 miles, shows that they are intending to use 20 lagoons of diameter 1.5 miles. I’m not sure whether FoE included the internal lagoon dividing walls in their sums. Doing so increases the amount of wall by 2/3 for the same amount of water impounded, and forces the size of the lagoon up; it then requires 12 lagoons of diameter 2.6 miles to make the sums balance (this is an approximation, because the internal walls are stated as being "less substantial"). As noted above, these need to be in the shallows, out of the shipping lanes, on areas of sound foundation; and that doesn’t leave many locations at all in the Severn Estuary.
I think part of the lowness of the externally estimated 500 MW peak output for lagoons comes from correcting the FoE assumptions about pumping, bi-directional generation, and efficiency in multi-celled lagoons; and part comes from lowering the likely number of lagoons and impounded water due to lack of enough suitable sites.
Finally, FoE need to clear up their construction methods. They correctly point to seabed aggregate dredging as the only likely source for the astonishingly big 200 million tons of aggregate needed (page 9); but seem to have forgotten that they are themselves opposed to seabed aggregate dredging, e.g. [11] Fig 10:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that the project is to be funded by private investors not the UK government as has been stated time and again by one person.....There is one fact that is a constant in the universe even Stephen Hawkins would agree to, investors are a queer animal that wish to see return on their investment. Given there are very large question marks over the amount of power produced (numbers vary from study to study) a investor would look at this propsal as not commercially viable when there are easier and less risky venture about. If this is not going to be built by government an outlay of 15 billion for 2000-8000 meg or 2-6 meg per million does not hold attraction for private investment. Tidalenergy 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
With the advent of Bio-diesel there is a new advantage to tidal lagoons. The emerging data regarding the production of oil feedstocks from algae suggests yields of 95000 l/h, this means that tidal lagoons could provide an essential new source of income for farmers in the southwest growing algae in a controlled way in tidal lagoons. These lagoons would be nurished by the high silt salt-water from the estuary while at the same time providing managed saltwater marshes for natural species of the area. I think someone should consider this in more detail and add it to the wiki, I will do it myself if i have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.127.79 ( talk) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Fig man has been pushing this idea all over Wiki. One needs to ask who will pay the billions to build let alone operate the system. At a cost of 10-15 billion (today --- it usually blows out to 2 or 3 times in reality) for 4.5 - 5 gigawatts it equates to around 2 - 3 million pounds per mega watt. Given a price for wholesalers into the grid of 12 pence at best (I will stand corrected on the price if someone has accurate numbers) or 120 pounds per meg or 120,000 pounds per gig then the pay back would be 10 - 15 years. This is below what private enterprise would expect as a return on investment.
Clearly government would need to provide incentives if the project were to go ahead.
Otherwise by reducing civil infrastructure, eliminating the concrete barrier and the flodding of the eco systems it seems that under water windmills arrayed across the sea floor would be capable of generating large amounts of power at a fraction of the cost. Just how much would be determined by the water velocity. But there is no reason to believe that existing companies already commercialising under water turbines could be capable of utilising the site.
Sorry Fig man but I can not see investors putting money into a utility unless it returns at least 17%. In order to make this a reality it needs money and lots of it and sad to say support form the EPA over eco issues.
Large systems like this are problematic at best and can be handled better by alternative options. (Added by User talk:210.9.237.1 on 8 Aug)
I placed a number of edits on the disadvantages that have been deleted. This should not be the case as it was fair and balanced and not a POV. Tidalenergy 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone provide a reference for the proposal that added a massive 'cooling tower' ring-dam pumped-storage facility to the centre of the barrage ??
IIRC, it featured in 'New Scientist', but long, long before their digital archive began...
IIRC, benefits included time-shifting tidal generation to suit demand, and being able to maintain a much more 'natural' estuary environment-- Literally, you could dial-a-tide.
Also, IIRC, by 'texturing' and 'planting' (!!) outer face of the ring-dam, it could provide a protected, sea-cliff environment for puffins and other birds.
I don't recall finances beyond the peak-load savings inherent in pump-storage, but there was a comment about central 'island' that formed the root of both barrage & ring-dam being a convenient 'aerial rope-way' distance from both shores. Apparently, that would allow economic re-supply during construction. Also, the barrage could be be generating and earning while the pumped-storage ring-dam is built to full height...
Seems too good to be true...
82.42.187.185 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Nik
There is a huge amount of information in the recently released Sustainable Development Commission Paper [12] (as you might hope from an organisation that has just spent a year examining the history of the schemes!) That information should be transferred to this page to enhance it considerably. Fig 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The cost of the proposal is around 15 million and likly to blow out if the Government builds it. Therefore the amount of energy returned would not justify the project on a cost per Megawatt basis.
If however tidal stream technologies were to be use, in particular shrouded turbines the cost per Megawatt would be significant lower and may justify the project proceeding. Tidalenergy 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Many Thanks for suggestions and links !
However, the documented pumped-storage barrage schemes seem to use low-level lagoons, not the high-level ring-dam I remember-- Think 'cooling tower'.
Perhaps the proposal was no more than that one-off article and sketch... 82.42.187.185 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The nazi's never conquered Britain... they merely bombed the heck out of it... so why is it saying that the Nazis might have thought of the Barrage...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.72.67 ( talk) 10:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Nazi section as there was no source and I could find no reference to Nazi plans to build it on google. Please put it back in if a source does exist, however the idea that the Nazis were that well prepared in their invasion plans that they were planning major construction projects is rather hard to swallow. 62.232.4.58 ( talk) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I think it untrue that "Cost of build would mean the buy back time would be considerable and the barrage may only have a finite life span due to silting up behind barrage negating the "green" element" since in the Daily Telegraph it said that "It could be in operation by 2020 and the 'payback' time for carbon cost in building the barrage was only five to eight months" see [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.99.228 ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to improve some of the sections in this article eg combining short 1 sentence subsections in the history and adding or improving references, but I think a lot more work is needed. I arrived here as I'm working my way through the articles with cleanup tags listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing where this article is top of the list! Some areas I would like help to work on include:
I recognise this article addresses issues on which individuals hold strong views and this may have influenced its development. Although I'm still undecided on the best way forward for the barrage proposals, I do feel this is an article is an important topic which deserves to be improved.— Rod talk 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The list of benefits of this scheme is largely unsourced, while the list of disadvantages seems to have no sources at all! If these positives and negatives of the scheme are reported elsewhere, provide a verifiable citation to support them, or else remove them from the page. Original research is outlawed under WP:NOR, meaning that both lists require reliable published sources for each point made. Unsourced information is unhelpful and, given the rather tedious war that happened further up this talk page, open to abuse/bias. I myself do not know enough about this topic to correct the problems I can see with this article, but maybe someone else does. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I will shortly remove this section from the article (ref commented out):
To me, this seems like recentist, given that the plan's got no formal backing (it was not considered in the shortlist stage of the SEA, for example) and most sources on the subject are self-published by Woodham, or are him essentially promoting the plan in local newspapers - although coverage is particularly light, compared with other Severn Barrage plans. (One should be careful to remove references to the place in Canada if searching.) To all intensive purposes, it seems like a pipe dream, and one really needs significant coverage in third-party sources to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this section:
However, there is the question of the applicability of the term "renewable energy" to tidal power, as the root energy source is the rotational kinetic energy of the earth, which is not renewed.
Isn't this a little pedantic? Surely all 'renewable energy' could be described as non-renewable when taken on such a scale. The sun is not 'renewable', it's energy is not 'renewed' and will eventually run out, therefore solar power is not renewable by this argument. Wind power is also driven by thermal energy (ultimately from the sun), and possibly the rotational energy of the earth, and therefore not ultimately renewable. Surely this discussion should be moved to a different page - perhaps the general discussion of Renewable Energy and we can assume on this page that 'Renewable Energy' applies to energy that will remain available until the earth stops spinning, by which time we might have other problems. Timbits82 ( talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Severn Barrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The caption says GW signifies "million watts" ( aka MW). GW stands for Gigawatt ie "billion watts" HarryRob ( talk) 20:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't like the long hyphen in eg: Corlan Hafren—2011 Does this need any more than a space? Or a comma? S C Cheese ( talk) 10:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add older projects, by year.
Also, the details of the STPG plans are all in those links. Expand on them with generic pictures...I will if I ever get time! Fig 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now added some pics Fig 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added some brief details of the older projects, and the new one by the guy from neath. Also added supporters and opponents of the plans.
Fig
18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is clearly written by the pro-barrage lobby and therefore breaks Wilkipedia's NPOV policy. In particular, the environmental costs, and degree of acceptance in the scientific community of the costs, are understated. Suggest removal of article or wait until a truly unbiased submission is made 212.137.61.82 10:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
However, in order to understand where the vested interests might lie, it is necessary to see the wider picture. The alternative to any Severn Barrage would probably be three nuclear power stations; and these are huge facilities that would have to be built by someone - the same construction industry that stands to gain from the barrage.
Why then would this project proceed? Tidalenergy 05:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry old man this is not the Twilight Zone and I have no intention of creepily obsessively sniping at you. Perhaps you might want to tone down the allegations.
I would invite you to please take up the option of mediation/arbitration --- I long ago offered this but you never took it up. I would gladly submit to any fair and equitable conflict resolution in an attempt to have you relieved of what you perceive as persecution. Perception IS reality as they say.
As for the other allegations I have answered you before --- I have no former company that I am promoting, believe it or not.
In regard to the data, if it is fair for you to ask that the evidence be produced here, when you ask for it from others - why is it not fair to ask you the same? Not everyone has access to your vast array of data bases. Please, I say this without malice or guile, can you post it here for all to see? Let the debate be open fair and transparent. Tidalenergy 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A lot has been said of the amount of power that would be produced - around 2000-8000 megawatts - but with little if any scrutiny of these numbers. The numbers and the studies should be produced here to add to the debate and allow scrutiny. Tidalenergy 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Any Severn Barrage proposal needs to consider 1) Impact on European protected species and habitats. You cannot replace an ecosystem like the Severn. The site is designated for what is there now, not what might emerge after the works are finished. You cannot mitigate for destruction. 2) Where will the building materials come from? Do we want to hollow out the Mendip Hills just to drop them in the river? 3) Water levels are likely to rise inside and outside the barrage requiring considerable investment in flood protection. This is because the flow of the water in and out of the estuary will be constricted and slowed so the water will back up thus raising water levels. 4) The impact on the viability of Bristol Port needs to be considered. 5) Many of the factories alongside the Severn eg Avonmouth discharge effluent into the river. The Environment Agency have guaged and licenced these discharges against the current very active tidal regime. Any change to that regime will inevitably lead to a reassessment of those discharges potentially impacting negatively on the viability of those works.
The article contains a factual error - the severn estuary is not designated as a special area for (sic) conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive but part of the estuary is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Birds Directive and is also an internationally designated site under the Ramsar convention. The UK government is currently considering whether to put the site forward as a potential special area of conservation (SAC) but has yet to do so. ( 81.179.104.197 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
Could you provide a source for "The output of a set of large lagoons has been estimated at about 500 MW peak output, less than 1/10th of a barrage." My reading of the reference provided is that for the largest scenario peak output is about half of barrage peak (4.5GW), with average power 30% higher than barrage because it operates in more states of the tide. Also why was "it is claimed that" added to "the lagoons would not impound water in the ecologically sensitive inter-tidal areas of the estuary."? My reading is that the lagoons would be built below the low-water mark, not over the inter-tidal areas. Rwendland 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As an exercise I have used their given numbers (page 2 of their document) for wall length and impounded area to calculate the number and size of lagoons they envisage, to highlight why simply stating that the lagoons will be "at the low water mark, typically up to a mile out from firm ground" is not credible without showing exactly where.
(These sums are easy using simultaneous equations of the circumference and area of a circle.)
FoE intend to impound 115 miles^2 of water. As a single lagoon this would be an impossible 12 miles in diameter, for which there is obviously no suitable site. However, equalising this with the stated wall length of 95 miles, shows that they are intending to use 20 lagoons of diameter 1.5 miles. I’m not sure whether FoE included the internal lagoon dividing walls in their sums. Doing so increases the amount of wall by 2/3 for the same amount of water impounded, and forces the size of the lagoon up; it then requires 12 lagoons of diameter 2.6 miles to make the sums balance (this is an approximation, because the internal walls are stated as being "less substantial"). As noted above, these need to be in the shallows, out of the shipping lanes, on areas of sound foundation; and that doesn’t leave many locations at all in the Severn Estuary.
I think part of the lowness of the externally estimated 500 MW peak output for lagoons comes from correcting the FoE assumptions about pumping, bi-directional generation, and efficiency in multi-celled lagoons; and part comes from lowering the likely number of lagoons and impounded water due to lack of enough suitable sites.
Finally, FoE need to clear up their construction methods. They correctly point to seabed aggregate dredging as the only likely source for the astonishingly big 200 million tons of aggregate needed (page 9); but seem to have forgotten that they are themselves opposed to seabed aggregate dredging, e.g. [11] Fig 10:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that the project is to be funded by private investors not the UK government as has been stated time and again by one person.....There is one fact that is a constant in the universe even Stephen Hawkins would agree to, investors are a queer animal that wish to see return on their investment. Given there are very large question marks over the amount of power produced (numbers vary from study to study) a investor would look at this propsal as not commercially viable when there are easier and less risky venture about. If this is not going to be built by government an outlay of 15 billion for 2000-8000 meg or 2-6 meg per million does not hold attraction for private investment. Tidalenergy 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
With the advent of Bio-diesel there is a new advantage to tidal lagoons. The emerging data regarding the production of oil feedstocks from algae suggests yields of 95000 l/h, this means that tidal lagoons could provide an essential new source of income for farmers in the southwest growing algae in a controlled way in tidal lagoons. These lagoons would be nurished by the high silt salt-water from the estuary while at the same time providing managed saltwater marshes for natural species of the area. I think someone should consider this in more detail and add it to the wiki, I will do it myself if i have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.127.79 ( talk) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Fig man has been pushing this idea all over Wiki. One needs to ask who will pay the billions to build let alone operate the system. At a cost of 10-15 billion (today --- it usually blows out to 2 or 3 times in reality) for 4.5 - 5 gigawatts it equates to around 2 - 3 million pounds per mega watt. Given a price for wholesalers into the grid of 12 pence at best (I will stand corrected on the price if someone has accurate numbers) or 120 pounds per meg or 120,000 pounds per gig then the pay back would be 10 - 15 years. This is below what private enterprise would expect as a return on investment.
Clearly government would need to provide incentives if the project were to go ahead.
Otherwise by reducing civil infrastructure, eliminating the concrete barrier and the flodding of the eco systems it seems that under water windmills arrayed across the sea floor would be capable of generating large amounts of power at a fraction of the cost. Just how much would be determined by the water velocity. But there is no reason to believe that existing companies already commercialising under water turbines could be capable of utilising the site.
Sorry Fig man but I can not see investors putting money into a utility unless it returns at least 17%. In order to make this a reality it needs money and lots of it and sad to say support form the EPA over eco issues.
Large systems like this are problematic at best and can be handled better by alternative options. (Added by User talk:210.9.237.1 on 8 Aug)
I placed a number of edits on the disadvantages that have been deleted. This should not be the case as it was fair and balanced and not a POV. Tidalenergy 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone provide a reference for the proposal that added a massive 'cooling tower' ring-dam pumped-storage facility to the centre of the barrage ??
IIRC, it featured in 'New Scientist', but long, long before their digital archive began...
IIRC, benefits included time-shifting tidal generation to suit demand, and being able to maintain a much more 'natural' estuary environment-- Literally, you could dial-a-tide.
Also, IIRC, by 'texturing' and 'planting' (!!) outer face of the ring-dam, it could provide a protected, sea-cliff environment for puffins and other birds.
I don't recall finances beyond the peak-load savings inherent in pump-storage, but there was a comment about central 'island' that formed the root of both barrage & ring-dam being a convenient 'aerial rope-way' distance from both shores. Apparently, that would allow economic re-supply during construction. Also, the barrage could be be generating and earning while the pumped-storage ring-dam is built to full height...
Seems too good to be true...
82.42.187.185 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Nik
There is a huge amount of information in the recently released Sustainable Development Commission Paper [12] (as you might hope from an organisation that has just spent a year examining the history of the schemes!) That information should be transferred to this page to enhance it considerably. Fig 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The cost of the proposal is around 15 million and likly to blow out if the Government builds it. Therefore the amount of energy returned would not justify the project on a cost per Megawatt basis.
If however tidal stream technologies were to be use, in particular shrouded turbines the cost per Megawatt would be significant lower and may justify the project proceeding. Tidalenergy 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Many Thanks for suggestions and links !
However, the documented pumped-storage barrage schemes seem to use low-level lagoons, not the high-level ring-dam I remember-- Think 'cooling tower'.
Perhaps the proposal was no more than that one-off article and sketch... 82.42.187.185 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The nazi's never conquered Britain... they merely bombed the heck out of it... so why is it saying that the Nazis might have thought of the Barrage...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.72.67 ( talk) 10:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the Nazi section as there was no source and I could find no reference to Nazi plans to build it on google. Please put it back in if a source does exist, however the idea that the Nazis were that well prepared in their invasion plans that they were planning major construction projects is rather hard to swallow. 62.232.4.58 ( talk) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I think it untrue that "Cost of build would mean the buy back time would be considerable and the barrage may only have a finite life span due to silting up behind barrage negating the "green" element" since in the Daily Telegraph it said that "It could be in operation by 2020 and the 'payback' time for carbon cost in building the barrage was only five to eight months" see [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.99.228 ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to improve some of the sections in this article eg combining short 1 sentence subsections in the history and adding or improving references, but I think a lot more work is needed. I arrived here as I'm working my way through the articles with cleanup tags listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing where this article is top of the list! Some areas I would like help to work on include:
I recognise this article addresses issues on which individuals hold strong views and this may have influenced its development. Although I'm still undecided on the best way forward for the barrage proposals, I do feel this is an article is an important topic which deserves to be improved.— Rod talk 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The list of benefits of this scheme is largely unsourced, while the list of disadvantages seems to have no sources at all! If these positives and negatives of the scheme are reported elsewhere, provide a verifiable citation to support them, or else remove them from the page. Original research is outlawed under WP:NOR, meaning that both lists require reliable published sources for each point made. Unsourced information is unhelpful and, given the rather tedious war that happened further up this talk page, open to abuse/bias. I myself do not know enough about this topic to correct the problems I can see with this article, but maybe someone else does. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I will shortly remove this section from the article (ref commented out):
To me, this seems like recentist, given that the plan's got no formal backing (it was not considered in the shortlist stage of the SEA, for example) and most sources on the subject are self-published by Woodham, or are him essentially promoting the plan in local newspapers - although coverage is particularly light, compared with other Severn Barrage plans. (One should be careful to remove references to the place in Canada if searching.) To all intensive purposes, it seems like a pipe dream, and one really needs significant coverage in third-party sources to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this section:
However, there is the question of the applicability of the term "renewable energy" to tidal power, as the root energy source is the rotational kinetic energy of the earth, which is not renewed.
Isn't this a little pedantic? Surely all 'renewable energy' could be described as non-renewable when taken on such a scale. The sun is not 'renewable', it's energy is not 'renewed' and will eventually run out, therefore solar power is not renewable by this argument. Wind power is also driven by thermal energy (ultimately from the sun), and possibly the rotational energy of the earth, and therefore not ultimately renewable. Surely this discussion should be moved to a different page - perhaps the general discussion of Renewable Energy and we can assume on this page that 'Renewable Energy' applies to energy that will remain available until the earth stops spinning, by which time we might have other problems. Timbits82 ( talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Severn Barrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The caption says GW signifies "million watts" ( aka MW). GW stands for Gigawatt ie "billion watts" HarryRob ( talk) 20:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't like the long hyphen in eg: Corlan Hafren—2011 Does this need any more than a space? Or a comma? S C Cheese ( talk) 10:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)